PrecedentialLandmarkMixed — part reversed

In re Driven Innovations, Inc.

Serial No. 77073701 · Decided 2015-06-30 · Section 2(e)(1) Ex Parte Appeal

What happened

Refusal affirmed — the Board found that DOTBLOG for providing specific information as requested by customers via the Internet is merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1), because DOT is the standard pronunciation of the period in an Internet address and BLOG describes weblogs, so the combined term immediately describes an Internet-based blog information service. The Board also held, in an expanded five-judge panel opinion that expressly overrules In re Sambado and In re Jump Designs, that applicants may not separately challenge the examining attorney’s ‘clear error’ determination on appeal to the Board or by petition to the Director. The failure to function refusal under Sections 1, 2, 3 and 45 was found inapplicable because applicant’s services are not domain registration services.

Authority status

Mixed — part reversed

Part of this decision was disturbed on appeal and part of it was not. Which part matters, so read the events below before relying on any of it.

What happened afterwards (3)

2017-01-04 · Fed. Cir.CT DECISION: REVERSED AND REMANDEDIn re Driven Innovations, Inc., No. 2016-1094 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2017) (nonprecedential). The court reversed the Section 2(e)(1) holding, finding DOTBLOG suggestive rather than merely descriptive: "dot" does not immediately convey the punctuation meaning and reaching it "requires some operation of the imagination," and the evidence for "blog" showed at most some relation between the services and blogs without describing how. The Board's SEPARATE holding on the clear-error standard, which overruled In re Sambado and In re Jump Designs, was not challenged on appeal, was not addressed, and continues to be cited as Driven Innovations, reversed on other grounds.
2017-02-28 · Fed. Cir.MANDATE
2017-05-24 · TTABTERMINATED

The marks

Applicant

DOTBLOG

providing specific information as requested by customers via the Internet (Class 42)

Why this decision is significant

Precedential expanded five-judge panel decision that expressly overrules two prior TTAB precedents (Sambado and Jump Designs) on the clear error standard. Establishes binding rule that applicants cannot challenge the ‘clear error’ determination on appeal, only the substantive refusal itself. Broad applicability to any case where a refusal is raised during statement of use examination.

Research significance is Trademark Valet's editorial rating of how useful a decision is to practitioners. It is not a statement of precedential weight — that is the separate Precedential field, which comes from the Board.

The original record

Read the opinion and every filing on the Board's own docket. The summary above is our paraphrase, not a quotation from the opinion. The opinion is the authority.

Open this case on TTABVUE, the Board's docket ↗

Who checked this

Not yet reviewed by an attorney. This summary is generated from coded data, and it says so until a lawyer has read it.

Provenance — Written from the opinion; research-significance tier confirmed.

General information about how trademark law works. It is not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not make anyone your lawyer.

← Back to the library